Not surprisingly, the public response has been overwhelmingly negative. Most view McCutcheon as yet another victory for big money.

Contrary to popular belief, however, the court's ruling will likely have a positive impact on federal elections. The reason is because it gives candidates and parties a boost in competing against Super PACs.

The McCutcheon case arose from an Alabama businessman's challenge to the overall cap on federal campaign contributions.

Since the 1970s, Congress has maintained two basic types of contribution limits: base limits and aggregate limits. Base limits prohibit a campaign contributor from giving any particular candidate more than $5,200 during a two-year election cycle.

The McCutcheon ruling leaves the base limits untouched. Instead, the court overturned the limit on "aggregate" or overall campaign contributions. Prior to the ruling, federal law prohibited a donor from giving more than a combined total of $123,000 to federal candidates, parties and affiliated committees over a two-year period.

That law is now history. The McCutcheon ruling frees contributors to give the maximum amount of $5,200 per candidate to as many federal candidates as they like. For example, a wealthy Republican or Democratic donor may now give up to $5,200 each to all 435 House Republican or Democratic candidates. The ruling has a similar impact on contributions to political parties and affiliated committees.

Why did the court throw out the overall limits?

Writing for a narrow 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the government failed to prove that the aggregate cap reduces corruption. Whether a donor contributes to one candidate or 100 candidates, each candidate is still limited to a maximum of $5,200 in contributions per donor.

Roberts concluded, therefore, that the aggregate limits place an unacceptable burden on the First Amendment rights of campaign contributors without an adequate justification for doing so.

The McCutcheon ruling reminds many people of the 2010 case of Citizens United v. FEC. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution bars Congress from imposing contribution limits on Super PACs and other independent committees. The court held that since federal law prohibits them from coordinating their activities with candidates and parties, Super PACs pose no risk of corruption.

Citizens United generated a storm of controversy because the potential for Super PAC corruption seems obvious. Many now see the McCutcheon ruling as Citizens United Part 2.

But on closer inspection, it's clear that McCutcheon is actually a modest corrective to Citizens United.

Since 2010, Super PACs have enjoyed huge fundraising advantages over candidates and parties. For example, while the law caps a donor's contribution to a federal candidate at $5,200, the Citizens United decision permits that same donor to write a $5 million check to a Super PAC.

The result is Super PACs increasingly dictate the tenor and substance of election campaigns. Super PACs raised almost $1 billion in 2012. They'll attract even more money in 2016.

Super PACs undermine political transparency and accountability. Unlike candidates, who are directly accountable to the voters on election day, Super PACs answer to no one. With innocent-sounding names like "Restore Our Future" and "Priorities USA," Super PACs engage in ferociously negative advertising. The purpose of Super PACs isn't to propose new policies but rather to tear opposing candidates apart.

Making matters worse, many Super PACs are organized under a special tax provision that permits them to conceal their donors' identities. Super PAC anonymity stands in stark contrast to candidate campaigns, which by law must immediately disclose their contributors' identities to the public.

Consequently, the McCutcheon decision is a victory for candidates and parties because it gives them enhanced access to campaign contributions. Although Super PACs still wield enormous fundraising advantages, McCutcheon levels the financial playing field just a bit.

Understandably, most voters don't see much difference between Super PACs, parties and candidates. As campaign spending skyrockets, many Americans view the whole system as hopelessly corrupt.

Voters have cause for such pessimism. But in a political environment where we must choose between the lesser of two evils, the court's ruling represents a small step in the right direction.